find_symbol

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially does so by disclosing the return shape ('file:line, signature and container'), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not state read-only status, permission needs, or behavior on ambiguous matches, leaving real gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the return-value note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return shape adequately. It falls short only in not distinguishing itself from sibling retrieval tools or explaining the limit parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so kind, name, and exact are already documented, and the description adds nothing beyond the looser 'by name, repo-wide' framing. The undocumented 'limit' (bound 1-50, semantics never explained) is left entirely to the schema's numeric bounds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('a definition'), and scope ('by name, repo-wide'), plus what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from read_symbol, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named, despite an obvious sibling set (semantic_search for fuzzy lookup, read_symbol for reading a known symbol, find_references for usages). The agent must guess which lookup tool applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.